There’s “government benefits” and then there’s government benefits. Many here, myself included, receive a disability payment from the US Department of Veteran’s Affairs for injuries, wounds, ailments and conditions received as a part of service to the country in uniform. Others get the military retirement they worked for 20 or 30 years to become vested in. Still others get the Social Security retirement they contributed to during their working lives. I do not equate the above with TANF, SNAP, SSDI, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, Section 8 or the like, do you?

4
posted on 07/04/2014 12:02:34 AM PDT
by 2ndDivisionVet
(The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)

I’m with you, 2ndDivisionVet. There are definitely different kinds of government payments, but some people put all the benefits into one basket. That gives them the ability to say over 50% receive benefits. While that is a terribly high percentage, it doesn’t reveal the different kinds of benefits.

Military veterans, for example, earn their benefits by serving the country. The “benefits” are payment for service rendered. Then you have people who receive Social Security benefits after contributing to the program for decades. I do not equate the above beneficiaries with those who receive handouts simply for being born or sneaking into the country. There are even some Social Security payouts to people who have never contributed to the program. Again, that is a completely different matter than those Americans who contributed for decades and now deserve what was promised.

9
posted on 07/04/2014 12:27:37 AM PDT
by CitizenUSA
(Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.)

I have the same question about SS “benefits”. As I see it, for those who have paid into the system most of their adult working lives, it is an account payable for government. It is not a government benefit.

Many of those are Libertarian/Ayn Rand fan-boy Paulestinian Rontards. Others are people that were “too busy” to serve, like Mr. Obama and many others. I could give a $#*+ what they think about what you and I did.

13
posted on 07/04/2014 12:57:50 AM PDT
by 2ndDivisionVet
(The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)

Some of the more libertarian FReepers are against all such benefits, but I think it’s immoral to simply cut off people who have worked or contributed to their benefits. A military veteran is simply not the same as a welfare mom, and some on the right group them together in order to make a political argument. Over 50% receiving benefits sounds much worse than 20% or whatever on welfare. E

ven welfare moms shouldn’t simply be cut off if you ask me. These handouts need to go away over time so that people who are dependent on them can adapt. I know this isn’t a pure solution many want, but I think gradual reform leading to elimination of most of these programs is more moral. My fear is that the politicians will bankrupt the system before they’ll accomplish any reform.

I do know it’s absolutely wrong to not pay benefits that were actually earned or paid into by the recipients. That’s thievery.

14
posted on 07/04/2014 12:59:06 AM PDT
by CitizenUSA
(Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.)

Some of the libertarians really don’t care if the elderly are tossed out in the streets when Social Security fails. Hey. I don’t like Social Security and would have opted out of it long ago. I’d probably STILL opt out, and I’m nearly eligible to collect. Regardless, I’d do whatever I could to preserve benefits for those who paid into it and are now retired on Social Security. Actually, that’s what you and I have done for decades. We’ve paid in so that others could retire.

Again, I’m all for cutting Social Security over time, and I want the young to have a chance to opt out if they wish. If Social Security is really such a good deal as Democrats claim, surely they wouldn’t oppose letting people choose to enroll, right? It’s such a great deal, plenty of people would still pay in with no ability to pass their contributions on as inheritance or earn anything approaching a normal investment...NOT. And that is exactly why the Democrats won’t open these programs up, because people would opt out in droves. It’s about POWER!

16
posted on 07/04/2014 1:06:09 AM PDT
by CitizenUSA
(Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.)

Welfare reform was passed in the 90’s and signed into law by President Clinton. It limited lifetime benefits. I was there when it happened, teaching recipients how to look for work at the state unemployment office. Many of those women finally decided to go to work. BTW, we (taxpayers) had paid for many of them to attend college or trade schools and they “still couldn’t find a job” (in a city with 3% unemployment!) until the law came about. Then, miraculously, they found work. Mr. Obama rescinded those requirements.

17
posted on 07/04/2014 1:09:20 AM PDT
by 2ndDivisionVet
(The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.